Response to anti gun nonsense in the local paper

[t1m0thy]

http://mentalbrushfire.blogspot.com/...d-bucheit.html

Below is a response sent in by me to the local paper. These anti gun individuals need to be corrected whenever possible. They love to quote statistics and twist truth but when confronted with even the smallest amount of intellectual honesty their entire argument crumbles to pieces.

Original LTE:

Fired up over firearms

Which country arms its thugs, gang members, misfits, its paranoid and delusional with the most advanced guns in the world? Read on.

In these United States 120 people were shot yesterday, 120 people will be shot today and 120 people will be shot tomorrow. This has been the case for decades. Thirty people are murdered with guns every day of the year in the United States - a plane load of people a week, 52 plane loads a year. A dozen police will be murdered with guns this month. When foreign terrorists took down four plane loads of people we declared war and sent out Predator drones. Why do we ignore our homegrown terrorist debacle?

In 1997 firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada and 5,285 in the United States. The United States has the highest number of gun-related deaths among the 36 most wealthy nations of the world (CDC stats).

Timothy Havener promotes the carrying of guns by everyone. Does that make sense? If everyone at the meeting with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson were armed, would Jared Lee Loughner have been able to slaughter all the people he did? Yes, he would have - he did it all in seconds. If everyone there had had guns it is most likely it would have turned into a shootout with many more deaths and injuries. The notion of the good guy in the white hat shooting the bag guy is a myth created by the movies.

When terrorists took over planes did the Transportation Security Administration arm everyone or disarm everyone in the plane as a response? They made the sensible, rational decision, thank goodness. We are all on a plane called earth.

There are millions of uncontrolled guns in this country and tens of thousands of people who should not even own a hammer. The horrific, preventable loss of life is the result. Everyone of those people murdered by guns was guaranteed an inalienable right to life in the Declaration of Independence, the foundation ideal of the Constitution. It is obvious that all rights overlap, and here is one good example; the gun rights zealots will never admit that, however; they are absolutists.

One of the arguments of the gun rights people is that they need those guns in case they need to "take back their country." What could they be smoking? Are they going to take on the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and the state police? One of the greatest documents ever created is the Constitution. The gun rights zealots mock that document with their hysterical pronouncements. Our noble founding fathers gave us the ballot so that we would not have to resort to the bullet for settling disputes as had been the case for millennia; it is obvious that some people prefer the bullet - the law of the jungle. These are the proud and the arrogant who refuse to accept the rule of law as made by "we the people;" they want to be judge, jury and executioner.

I support Havener's right to own and carry a gun because I believe in the law, and that is the law currently. I also believe that the blood of the people shot and killed by guns in the 20th century is on the hands of not only the criminals but the legislators and judges who refuse to control the sale and use of guns - they all take an oath in which they swear to protect us, but they don't.

It is absurd when every Tom, Dick and Mary can buy a gun as if they were candy bars as proven by Colin Goddard, a student who was shot four times at Virginia Tech. It is outrageous when our students and all of us must live in fear because guns are as common and available as dandelions in the field.

My response:

Where do I begin?

Well, let's start with your quotation of statistics from the CDC. If you look at a report from the CDC published in 2003 they were unable to find any direct relation between firearm ownership and gun violence. This means that despite your implications they found no justification for restrictions on gun ownership with the all data they had processed.

To put your statistics in the proper context we may also look at the CDC statistics on motor vehicle accidents. Their website states the following:

“Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S.1 More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009”

That is over 6,300 people a day injured by motor vehicles compared to the 120 people a day that are injured by firearms. So by comparison you should be far more outraged that nearly anyone can go out and get behind the wheel of their very own death machine and drive freely on the public highways.

Also, when a person commits a crime with a firearm they are permanently barred from ever owning a gun again, but a person who commits a crime with a car can go out and have their driving rights restored.

Let's move on to look at your criticism of guns in the vein of protecting our freedom. As a gun owner I abhor the thought of an armed revolution. I roundly criticize those who preach about such actions, however, the ultimate purpose of an armed society is by its very nature a deterrent against tyranny in government. As the great liberal, Thomas Jefferson, once said:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Though it is a deplorable last measure, the right to keep and bear arms is our last defense against tyranny. And I must note that, in my opinion, we are very far from that option being a reality in the near future and those that espouse such ideas over civil debate and peaceful political action are dangerous fools who should be marginalized.

Now as a final rebuttal of your argument I will take on your claim that I am encouraging the sale of guns to just any “Tom, Dick and Mary”, as you put it. This is patently absurd; no random individual can just go and get a gun and carry it around without going through a background check for purchase and they must be a permitted individual to own firearms. To say it is like buying a candy bar is dishonest and untruthful.

What you lack in facts you make up for in passion, Mr. Bucheit. I appreciate your opinion and I am glad to have someone like you out there expressing their first amendment rights. I hope that people like yourself may come to realize that individual freedom is not a collective bargaining agreement and that just because you may feel passionately about an issue, it does not give you the pervue to have liberty taken from others by political force. If you pursue your current course of action, you may find one day, as the German Pastor Martin Niemöller discovered, that there is no one left to speak for you or defend you when your rights are being taken away.

[mpan72]

It is hard to get the anti's to have an open mind. No matter what our arguments are they just sweep them aside with some stupid slogan or cliche. I see where the author of the letter points out our founding Fathers gave us the ballot box to enact change but neglects the fact that these same heroic people took to their guns to get us there in the first place. I personly don't think we are close to that point yet.
T1m0thy I think you gave a well articulated intellegent responce. I also think the writter of the orginal letter stated his oppinion well. The difference being, if the two of you were debating in person his demeaner and attitude would change when faced with such a well thought out answer. It would turn ugly from his side as he would start calling you names like ''gun nut", ''redneck" or something along those lines. I have been down this road quite a few times and it is funny to see an otherwise intellegent person change into a mumbling mess when confronted with the real facts.

[glock19girl]

nicely written response

[Siobhra]

It is hard to get the anti's to have an open mind. No matter what our arguments are they just sweep them aside with some stupid slogan or cliche.

I had that happen back when I was a Unitarian. The parking lot was full of cars with slogan's like "A mind is like a parachute, it only works when open". Yet they were so closed minded if the idea was not liberal. Try to talk gun rights and be pro-gun and slam, the mind shuts.

[twoguns]

From the article:

"When terrorists took over planes did the Transportation Security Administration arm everyone or disarm everyone in the plane as a response? They made the sensible, rational decision, thank goodness."

Yes, yes there are those words -- "sensible" and "rational", implying that anyone not in agreement with this jerk-kneed twit is not "sensible" or "rational". I detest this type of characterization of the issue.

If we are to extend the arguments put forth by the silly person who penned this drivel, we should demand that box cutters be regulated with a minimum 5 day waiting period, full background check on the prospective purchaser, oh and even ban them outright! The terrorists who hi-jacked the planes use box cutters not guns!

Nice response, Timothy. I commend you for your patiently articulated rebuttal. Sadly, I believe that there really is no way to reason with the likes of this author. As stated in a previous comment, his/her mind is closed to reason.

[steelerfan]

Good response & good that you took the time to respond as well

[Yellowfin]

I had that happen back when I was a Unitarian. The parking lot was full of cars with slogan's like "A mind is like a parachute, it only works when open". Yet they were so closed minded if the idea was not liberal. Try to talk gun rights and be pro-gun and slam, the mind shuts.

Bring it up in the context of racial minorities, the poor, and gays defending themselves from the KKK and see if you get a different response. Point them in the direction of the Pink Pistols.

For example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8290378984637#

[Big Chuck]

In one breath you quote Thomas Jefferson,

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

but then argue for the regulation and restriction of firearm ownership.

Now as a final rebuttal of your argument I will take on your claim that I am encouraging the sale of guns to just any “Tom, Dick and Mary”, as you put it. This is patently absurd; no random individual can just go and get a gun and carry it around without going through a background check for purchase and they must be a permitted individual to own firearms. To say it is like buying a candy bar is dishonest and untruthful.

Allowing these "sensible" restrictions has created the slippery slope that has made it all but impossible to even own a firearm in some parts of the country, such as Chicago. May I suggest you take a stance based more on constitutionality and liberty, than on practicality. Allowing the argument to degrade to mere concern over safety does nothing but give them ammunition. Would we allow the police to violate someone's 4th or 5th amendment rights in the name of safety?...... Oh wait, never mind. We have let that happen too.

[Yellowfin]

Funny how we didn't seem to have all these problems that anti gun morons seem to claim to want to prevent BEFORE we actually had all these idiotic restrictive laws in place.

[GunLawyer001]

In one breath you quote Thomas Jefferson,



but then argue for the regulation and restriction of firearm ownership.

You need to look up the meaning of the phrase "argue for". He was being accurately descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not as easy to buy guns as it is to buy candy bars.